U.S. military

The United States Armed Forces are the military forces of the United States of America. It consists of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and forms military policy with the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), both federal executive departments, acting as the principal organs by which military policy is carried out.
News on the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard, and other aspects of the U.S. military.
  • Vanguard News

    Buhari complied with all court orders as a military head of state… Falana

    Idowu Bankole Human rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr Femi Falana says President Muhammadu Buhari complied with all court orders when he was a military head but wondered why he has persistently not done so in a democracy. The Human rights activist said this in Lagos, during a public lecture on the 30th anniversary of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), on Thursday. Falana stated that during Buhari's reign as a military head he complied with court orders but has failed to do so now. “I just remember this morning trying to write a letter to the Attorney-General of the Federation and I find, very painfully, that whereas the Buhari/Idiagbon regime complied

  • Sudan protesters keep up campaign for civilian rule

    Sudan protesters keep up campaign for civilian rule

    Thousands of Sudanese protesters performed the weekly Muslim prayers outside army headquarters on Friday, a day after vast crowd of demonstrators flooded Khartoum to demand the military rulers cede power. Protesters have massed outside the army complex in central Khartoum since April 6, initially to demand the overthrow of longtime leader Omar al-Bashir. Despite international support for the protesters, the 10-member council has so far resisted, although three of its members resigned on Wednesday under pressure from the street.

  • Associated Press

    Naval Academy police chief fired amid sex harassment claims

    ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — The police chief at the U.S. Naval Academy in Delaware's capital has been fired amid allegations of sexual harassment.

  • Air Force Pilot Gives Us the Straight Dope on the F-35: "I couldn't ask for anything better"
    The National Interest

    Air Force Pilot Gives Us the Straight Dope on the F-35: "I couldn't ask for anything better"

    The most telling testimonials to F-35 excellence come from the pilots who have flown the plane. The Navy reported after the first at-sea trials of the carrier version that "the aircraft demonstrated exceptional performance throughout its initial sea trials." More recently, a squadron commander who participated in last year's Northern Lightning exercise told an in-house Air Force publication, "I couldn't ask for anything better. It's like fighting somebody with their hands tied behind their backs." Another pilot flying adversary aircraft in the exercise remarked, "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on." Pilots generally say F-35 is far superior to legacy fighters.(This first appeared in 2017.)This week's performance by the F-35 fighter at the Paris Air Show is a turning point for the world's most advanced multi-role fighter, demonstrating that even when fully loaded with combat gear, it can out-perform the tactical aircraft of every other country. Although prime contractor Lockheed Martin has always professed confidence F-35 would prove itself, a dwindling collection of critics continues to attack the plane citing outdated or simply erroneous arguments.

  • 5 Ways That Nearly Guarantee America Would Beat Russia in a War
    The National Interest

    5 Ways That Nearly Guarantee America Would Beat Russia in a War

    While not a “weapon” in the traditional sense, the U.S. global alliance network would greatly enhance America’s ability to wage war against Russia. In this sense, it is telling that Russia lists NATO (rather than the United States) as its greatest security threat.During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union battled for global primacy. Although this rivalry often played itself out in proxy wars, the two superpowers obsessed over how a direct war between them would unfold. For the United States, conflict scenarios primarily envisioned using America’s technological advantages to offset the numerically superior Russian forces.The end of the Cold War has greatly dampened the potential for conflict between Russia and the United States, and their massive nuclear arsenals make it further unlikely that they will come to blows. Nonetheless, the post–Cold War era did not herald an end to great-power politics, nor did it bring about anything approaching an alliance between Moscow and Washington. Real and persistent tensions have remained in bilateral relations, and these have grown considerably in recent years.As such, U.S. and Russian strategists continue to draw up war plans for one another. In this endeavor, Russian military strategists have had to contend with America’s growing technology supremacy in many areas, with five weapons of war foremost in their minds: 1\. Ohio-Class Ballistic Missile Submarines

  • Group plans funerals for 23 homeless or indigent veterans in Arizona
    KTAR 92.3 Phoenix

    Group plans funerals for 23 homeless or indigent veterans in Arizona

    MARANA, Ariz. — A group that works to locate, identify and inter the cremated remains of unclaimed American military members plans to hold services for 23 veterans. The services planned for Saturday at the Arizona Veterans' Memorial Cemetery at Marana will include military honors, a last roll call and a “Missing Man Formation” aircraft flyover. The services are being held by the Southern Arizona Missing in America Project with assistance from the state Department of Veterans' Services. The Missing in America Project looks for cremated remains of homeless, unclaimed or indigent veterans and has held services for more than 3,900 forgotten veterans since the mid-2000s. The 23 veterans to be interred

  • https://www.oneindia.com

    Naval officer dies in fire onboard INS Vikramaditya near Karnataka's Karwar

    Bengaluru, Apr 26: A naval officer died on Friday after he was trying to control the fire on board aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya near Karnataka's Karwar harbour. "Lieutenant Commander DS Chauhan bravely led the firefighting efforts in the affected compartment," the Navy said in a statement. The incident was reported on board INS Vikramaditya this morning when the ship was entering the harbour in Karwar. The Navy said while the fire was brought under control, the officer lost consciousness due to the smoke and fumes during the firefighting efforts. He was immediately evacuated to the Naval Hospital at Karwar but could not be revived. A Board of Inquiry to investigate into the circumstances

  • Meet China's DF-26 Missile: It Can Sink Aircraft Carriers or Start a Nuclear War
    The National Interest

    Meet China's DF-26 Missile: It Can Sink Aircraft Carriers or Start a Nuclear War

    “The missile might be launched from the northwest to the east by the Rocket Force, with a range of 2,000km or above. It was likely the advanced intermediate-range DF-26B, a modified version of the DF-26,” Hong Kong-based military analyst Liang Guoliang told the South China Morning Post at the time. “Given the landing area, the test is obviously aimed at THAAD in South Korea.”(This first appeared back in June of last year.)The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) commissioned the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) into service earlier this year in April.

  • Revisited - US military bases on Okinawa an unwelcome legacy of war with Japan
    France 24

    Revisited - US military bases on Okinawa an unwelcome legacy of war with Japan

    The Japanese archipelago of Okinawa was the scene of one of the bloodiest battles of World War II. Over 82 days in early 1945, an estimated 200,000 soldiers and civilians died in a "typhoon of steel". The legacy of war survives to this day. The United States never left the islands, setting up 32 military bases there. They were used during the wars in Vietnam and Korea, as well as more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The archipelago of Okinawa makes up less than one percent of Japan's land surface, yet it hosts almost two-thirds of the country's US bases. Residents of Okinawa have long demanded that the US military leave their islands. They complain about crimes committed by military personnel,

  • Reuters

    Senator Warren introduces military housing bill to boost inspections, transparency

    Senator Elizabeth Warren will introduce a bill Friday that offers new protections for U.S. military families facing unsafe housing, following a series of Reuters reports revealing squalid conditions in privately managed base homes. The Reuters reports and later Congressional hearings detailed widespread hazards including lead paint exposure, vermin infestations, collapsing ceilings, mold and maintenance lapses in privatized base housing communities that serve some 700,000 U.S. military family members. The Massachusetts Democrat’s bill would mandate both regular and unannounced spot inspections of base homes by certified, independent inspectors, holding landlords accountable for quickly fixing hazards.

  • F-35s vs. J-20s: How America's 5th Generation Stealth Fighters Would Crush China
    The National Interest

    F-35s vs. J-20s: How America's 5th Generation Stealth Fighters Would Crush China

    This can be explained in terms of a well-known Air Force strategic concept pioneered years ago by air theorist and pilot Col. John Boyd, referred to as the "OODA Loop," --- for observe, orient, decide and act. The concept is to complete this process quickly and make fast decisions while in an air-to-air dogfight -- in order to get inside the enemy's decision cycle, properly anticipate, and destroy an enemy before they can destroy you.The Air Force is accelerating development of a special, high-tech, on-board threat library for the F-35 designed to precisely identify enemy aircraft operating in different high-risk areas around the globe - such as a Chinese J-20 stealth fighter or Russian T-50 PAK FA 5th Gen fighter, service leaders said. (This first appeared in late 2017.)Described as the brains of the airplane, the "mission data files" are extensive on-board data systems compiling information on geography, air space and potential threats in areas where the F-35 might be expected to perform combat operations, Air Force officials explained."Mission data files are the key that unlocks the F-35," Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, Director of the F-35 Integration Office said.

  • Royal Air Forces Association Embraces AI To Fight Terrorist Threat

    Royal Air Forces Association Embraces AI To Fight Terrorist Threat

    The Royal Air Forces Association (RAFA) is a charity that provides welfare support to serving and ex-serving RAF personnel and their dependents. As such it is responsible for large quantities of sensitive data concerning the 1.5 million members of this RAF family. In the wrong hands this data would very quickly become a matter of national security. Given the ever evolving threatscape, with malicious actors ranging from criminal opportunists to sophisticated nation state and terrorist players, investment in advanced cybersecurity to defend against the most persistent and targeted kinds of attacks is no longer optional. While the basics of good cyber-hygiene must never be underestimated, security

  • In Vetoing Congress’s Yemen Resolution, Trump Stood Up to a Lawbreaking Legislature
    National Review

    In Vetoing Congress’s Yemen Resolution, Trump Stood Up to a Lawbreaking Legislature

    On April 16, President Trump vetoed Senate Joint Resolution 7. Pursuant to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the new statute directed the president to “remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen” -- where they are assisting a Saudi-led coalition that is present with the consent of Yemen’s government -- within 30 days. There was an exception for forces “engaged in operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces.”The veto was essential to upholding Trump’s oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Many, no doubt, voted “aye” because they honestly believe that Congress must approve all military operations and thus has the authority to remove forces from Yemen. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. If members of Congress believe the president’s foreign policies are misguided, they may communicate those concerns to him. But, with very limited exceptions largely involving treaties, nominations, and (now-illegal) all-out wars of aggression, legislators may not superimpose their own policy preferences over the constitutional discretion of the president to manage our foreign policy.The veto was also correct as a policy matter. While some support for the statute was simply politically partisan, some was clearly intended to protest the Saudi murder of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi or to address the tragic humanitarian crisis in Yemen — arguably the greatest such crisis in the world today. But the statute would have rewarded Iran (which provides ballistic missiles and other support to Yemen’s Shiite Houthis, who hate Israel, Jews, and the United States, and admire Iran’s Hezbollah terrorists), undermined peace and stability in the region, and placed at risk one of the most important maritime chokepoints to international petroleum commerce. The Houthis have fired Iranian ballistic missiles at ships in the Red Sea, including at the U.S.S. Mason; and Major General Qassem Soleimani — commander of Iran’s elite Quds force — declared last July that Iran might use proxies to disrupt oil shipments through the strategically critical Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Most wise people hope the United Nations peace efforts will succeed, but removing a major incentive for the Houthis to compromise will not likely further that end.In addition, the resolution defined the word “hostilities” to include “in-flight refueling of non-United States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.” Refueling operations by U.S. KC-135 and KC-10 tankers were ended last year in response to congressional pressure. That won’t keep coalition aircraft from striking targets and killing people anywhere in Yemen; but it will greatly reduce their loiter time over target — perhaps eliminating the time needed to make certain the assigned target is, in fact, a lawful military target rather than a wedding gathering or school bus filled with innocent children. (Enhanced loiter time is one of the many benefits of using drones to deliver ordnance against terrorists, as the pilot can delay the attack if he notices, for example, a group of children walking past the target.)To its credit, Congress recognized that ceasing intelligence and logistical support for the Saudi-led coalition might well endanger the lives of American citizens in the region and increase the risk of terrorist attacks on U.S. Armed Forces and allies around the globe — and attacks on the continental United States as well. But rather than consider these critical issues before voting, Congress in its wisdom directed the president to submit “reports” on these other issues within 90 days — two months after the troops had been withdrawn and the damage done. Separation of Powers and ‘Declaring War’ Under the ConstitutionRaised on the writings of John Locke, Montesquieu, and William Blackstone, the Framers understood that when Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution vested the nation’s "executive Power" in the president, the foreign-relations power was the “essential element of the grant” (to quote the legendary University of Chicago professor Quincy Wright in his 1922 classic, The Control of American Foreign Relations).As Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson explained in an April 24, 1790, memorandum to President Washington, the Constitution declares that “the Executive power” of the Nation is vested in the president, submitting only special articles to a “negative” by the Senate. Jefferson reasoned: “The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether; it belongs, then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.”Three days later, Washington recorded in his diary that he had discussed Jefferson’s memo with Chief Justice John Jay and Representative James Madison (often called “the Father of the Constitution”), and both agreed with Jefferson that most foreign-policy decisions were “Executive” in character and thus “vested in the President by the Constitution.”Three years later, Jefferson’s chief rival in Washington's cabinet, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, took an identical position in his first Pacificus essay when — after noting that the Constitution vested the “executive power” in the president — he wrote that “the power of the Legislature to declare war” was an “exception” out of “the general ‘executive power’ vested in the President,” and thus should be “construed strictly.” Relying upon the same authority, Federalist representative (and later Supreme Court chief justice) John Marshall declared in 1800: “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. . . . He possesses the whole Executive power.” Marshall’s “sole organ” language has been quoted with favor in scores of Supreme Court cases over the decades.Indeed, this understanding of presidential power was widely embraced by all three branches of government until around the end of the Vietnam War. For example, in a 1969 address at Cornell Law School, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright declared: “The preeminent responsibility of the president for the formulation and conduct of American foreign policy is clear and unalterable.” Formal Declarations of WarOne of the most misunderstood terms in constitutional law in the modern era is “Declaration of War.” On August 17, 1789, James Madison moved in the Constitutional Convention to narrow the power to be given Congress from “to make war” to the much narrower power “to declare war.” “Declare war” was a term of art from the Law of Nations, and was associated only with all-out aggressive wars — which were legal in the 18th century. As Hugo Grotius, often called the father of modern international law, explained in his 1620 treatise on The Law of War and Peace: “No declaration is required when one is repelling an invasion, or seeking to punish the actual author of some crime.”Nor is such a declaration necessary when a country is using force inside the territory of another country with its consent, such as the current situation in Yemen; or against a non-state actor such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, or the Houthi in Yemen. Indeed, for Congress to formally “declare war” against ISIS or the Houthi would greatly strengthen their claims to be sovereign states. Those who demand new congressional authorization to fight ISIS ignore the fact that in 2001 Congress formally (but unnecessarily, since we were acting defensively) authorized the use of force against al-Qaeda, and the unanimous U.N. Security Council has repeatedly noted that ISIS is a “splinter group of Al-Qaeda.” (See, e.g., its resolutions 2170 and 2253.)More fundamentally, the kind of total aggressive war historically associated with declarations of war was outlawed by Article 2(4) of the 1945 U.N. Charter, and no country has clearly issued such a declaration since World War II. Just as the power to grant “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” (authorizing private ship owners to capture enemy ships as “prize”) given to Congress in Article I, Section 8 became an anachronism when such instruments were outlawed in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, the power to “declare war” -- given to Congress in the same clause -- became irrelevant when the sorts of conflicts historically associated with the term were banned under international law (unless and until a president tries to launch one anyway).The Founding Fathers understood the concept of force short of war. In the 1990 case of United States v. Verdugo-Uriquidez, the Supreme Court noted: “The United States frequently employs Armed Forces outside this country — over 200 times in our history — for the protection of American citizens or national security.” In contrast, Congress has declared war twelve times in five wars.When President Jefferson learned that Barbary pirates might be planning to declare war against the United States, he dispatched two-thirds of the new U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean with instructions to sink and burn the pirates’ ships if, upon arrival, they learned war had been declared. Although the June 1, 1801, departure of the squadron was reported in newspapers, Jefferson did not formally notify Congress of his actions until his first State of the Union message on December 8. No one in Congress appears to have expressed concern the president had usurped legislative authority.Congress does, of course, have other powers relevant to this conflict, including the requirement in Article I, Section 9, that no money can be drawn from the Treasury without appropriations made by law. Congress may refuse to appropriate new funds for the military, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed — most recently in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — that “Congress cannot direct the conduct of campaigns.” And it can no more “condition” appropriations to compel the president to exercise his constitutional discretion as directed by Congress than it can condition appropriations for the judiciary upon the Supreme Court deciding pending cases as instructed by Congress. Such a theory would destroy the separation of powers.Senate Joint Resolution 7 was passed by the House by a vote of 247–175 and by the Senate 54–46. This strongly suggests the two-thirds vote needed in each chamber to override the veto is unlikely. That is a very good thing.

  • Afghanistan's Hired Guns
    US News & World Report

    Afghanistan's Hired Guns

    The number of security contractors the military employs in Afghanistan is higher now than at any time since President Barack Obama declared an end to combat operations in the country in 2014, Defense Department documents show. More than 5,800 privately employed security personnel are currently operating in Afghanistan under Pentagon contracts, according to the latest report released this month that the military headquarters overseeing Middle East wars compiles for Congress. The number of security contractors jumped by more than 1,000 in the three months since the last report – a spike of more than 20 percent and the biggest increase in two years. More than 17,000 uniformed troops from NATO and partner countries are currently operating in Afghanistan in support of local forces, up from roughly 13,000 when President Donald Trump took office.

  • Business Standard India

    Change of command at Begumpet IAF station

    : Air Commodore M B Aserkar Thursday took over as the Air Officer Commanding of the Air Force Station at Begumpet here. Prior to present appointment, he was Air Officer Commanding of Air Force Station at Agra, which is a premier flying base, a Defence release said. The air officer, a graduate of the National Defence Academy and post-graduate from the Defence Services Staff College, Wellington, was initially commissioned in the fighter stream of Indian Air Force in June, 1988. He has flown a variety of aircraft such as Hunters, Mig21, T-96 and AN32, clocking a total of 5000 hours of flying experience, the release added. (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated